Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev accused the leaders of the flotilla of looking for a fight.

"They wanted to make a political statement. They wanted violence," according to Regev, who said Israel wanted a peaceful interception of the ships trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. "They are directly responsible for the violence and the deaths that occurred."

We don't know that they "attacked". They were enforcing an existing (admittedly bullshit) law. Do you seriously expect Israel to cave on it just because someone tested them? For every IDF disgusting abuse of power there's some really callous guerrilla strike by Palestinians or their sympathizers. We can get self-righteous when we know what actually happened, but being so ready to point fingers in such a historically-complex situation is rash. We can get self-righteous when we know what actually happened.

honestly, think the only way israel comes out of this not looking like psychos is if there was live fire or some other kind of legitimate threat posed by the activists. honestly wouldn't doubt there was non-passive struggling between some activists and the troops (ppl get hysterical, shit happens, not all activists are actually pacifists), but i find it deeply, deeply unlikely that what happened could justify the IDF acing 10-19 civilians

i mean zionism and the connection b/w jewishness is something that i only get on a very basic level that doesn't really resolve much between what happens in the old testament and what's on the news now also

honestly, think the only way israel comes out of this not looking like psychos is if there was live fire or some other kind of legitimate threat posed by the activists. honestly wouldn't doubt there was non-passive struggling between some activists and the troops (ppl get hysterical, shit happens, not all activists are actually pacifists), but i find it deeply, deeply unlikely that what happened could justify the IDF acing 10-19 civilians

having looked at a number of vids, it does seem basically that the israeli soldiers were attacked immediately on landing on the boat. now, landing on the boat unprotected was probably not a good idea, but then hitting soldiers with metal poles is also p stoopid. so i think there was a legitimate threat to the soldiers, but it's still a complete clusterfuck.

xpost. I really enjoyed 'Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present' by Michael B. Oren. yet it concerns it's self with america's involvement with the middle east as a whole. But israel and palestine are both explored in depth in the book.

Geez, if I made a list of things I wish I could delete from this board, idealistic talk about Israel/Palestine from when I was just getting out of college would be #1.

This, though, I think we talked about this kind of thing somewhere else:

"They wanted violence. ... They are directly responsible for the violence and the deaths that occurred."

This totally reactive, stop-hitting-yourself position sometimes seems like the entire intellectual bedrock of the IDF. "We didn't kill you; you committed suicide by doing something we asked you not to." Just pretending to be robotically morally neutral, agency-free.

I never really know what press to turn to when these I/P conflicts arise--everything is just so deeply partisan and emotive either way unlike few other topics. It's hard to know precisely what to believe.

Like in Europe, so many people are flooding to the streets protesting, which just doesn't happen when other countries commit war crimes (e.g. North Korea sinking that ship last week). Does it touch such a nerve with people because of the whole bitter religious backdrop, or just because people know the U.S. (and therefore the UN) will do fuck all about it, so they feel that have to make a huge noise?

Sometimes they even manage to sound aggrieved and annoyed about it, like it's so burdensome how people keep making them kill them. "Can't a guy get through a single day of stopping basic resources from reaching people without someone coming along and forcing us to kill them? It's just so rude."

Sometimes they even manage to sound aggrieved and annoyed about it, like it's /so burdensome/ how people keep making them kill them. "Can't a guy get through a single day of stopping basic resources from reaching people without someone coming along and /forcing/ us to kill them? It's just so rude."

Like in Europe, so many people are flooding to the streets protesting, which just doesn't happen when other countries commit war crimes (e.g. North Korea sinking that ship last week). Does it touch such a nerve with people because of the whole bitter religious backdrop, or just because people know the U.S. (and therefore the UN) will do fuck all about it, so they feel that have to make a huge noise?

anyone i've ever met who has a real bee in their bonnet about palestine has been anti-american, far-left, and/or muslim; europe has a lot of people like that.

Does it touch such a nerve with people because of the whole bitter religious backdrop, or just because people know the U.S. (and therefore the UN) will do fuck all about it, so they feel that have to make a huge noise?

not really: the UN is doing fuck-all about north korea torpedoing a warship/90 people being blown up in pakistan on friday/____________ but for some reason I/P engages people in a special way

on the matter of press releases, neither side really covers themselves in glory, but this is kind of a side issue

tbf the USA shares almost all the same faults as Israel, although not in quite so glaring a way. In the matter of human rights criticism, it surely acts as a proxy and a buffer state for the USA, as it does in so many other ways.

Being a democracy is pretty important here - means that what happens in this pretty brutal part of the world gets scrutinised in Israel and not so much in other countries. They still crucify and behead people in Saudi Arabia, but you never hear much about it.

Members of this Israeli government have advocated fundamentally reducing the civil/human rights of Israeli Arabs.

From what I understand, the situation in Israel is quite different than say ten years ago. The secular, liberal segment of Israeli society is losing. The orthodox, extremist segment is winning. The "middle" has shifted pretty far right. Democracy in Israel may well be dying.

This totally reactive, stop-hitting-yourself position sometimes seems like the entire intellectual bedrock of the IDF. "We didn't kill you; you committed suicide by doing something we asked you not to." Just pretending to be robotically morally neutral, agency-free.

Members of this Israeli government have advocated fundamentally reducing the civil/human rights of Israeli Arabs.

From what I understand, the situation in Israel is quite different than say ten years ago. The secular, liberal segment of Israeli society is losing. The orthodox, extremist segment is winning. The "middle" has shifted pretty far right. Democracy in Israel may well be dying.

― Super Cub, Monday, May 31, 2010 8:55 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark

doubt many people would deny that israel has a particularly shitty government right now

xpost. I really enjoyed 'Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present' by Michael B. Oren. yet it concerns it's self with america's involvement with the middle east as a whole. But israel and palestine are both explored in depth in the book.

And if the commandos were attacked with bars, (or throwing people off boats at some point in the altercation) how many people do you think you would have to shoot with assault rifles to make them stop?

That's an ugly scene, no doubt. It's totally understandable that the soldiers feared for their lives. IMO, that doesn't change the basic issue. Storming an aid flotilla full of protesters is not okay. It's not an acceptable way of dealing with this situation.

That also looks like a very poorly conceived operation. Dropping soldiers into the arms of an angry mob is not what I'd call a precision, surgical raid.